Madras High Court
R.Panchavarnam vs The District Registrar on 30 September, 2015
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.09.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P(MD).No.6925 of 2013
R.Panchavarnam ... Petitioner
Vs
The District Registrar
(Administration)
Madurai (North)
Registration Department,
Madurai. ...Respondent
Prayer- The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records in respect of the impugned letter vide
N.K.No.4067/R1/2012 dated 18.1.2013 issued by the Respondent, to quash the
same and to direct the Respondent to collect the stamp duty in difference, in
respect of 46 cents comprised in Survey No.271/4 in Thanichiyam Village,
Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District.
!For petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
For respondent : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan
Additional Government Pleader
:ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to set aside the impugned letter vide N.K.No.4067/R1/2012 dated 18.1.2013 issued by the Respondent, and to direct the Respondent to collect the stamp duty in difference, in respect of 46 cents comprised in Survey No.271/4 in Thanichiyam Village, Vadipatty Taluk, Madurai District.
2.Heard both sides.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased 46 cents of Nanja Land comprised in S.No.271/4 in Thanichiyam village from one Indra W/o late.Nachiappan for a valuable consideration. The sale deed was registered on 23.04.2005 at Parasalai Sub Registrar office in Kerala State as Document No.769/2005. The said Indra had also sold her another + cent land to the petitioner situated at Parasali village at Kerala State through the above said sale deed.
4.The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner paid Rs.640/- as stamp duty and a sum of Rs.285/- towards registration fee as directed by the Sub Registrar of Parasalai in order to register the above said sale deed. To make necessary entries in respect of the petitioner's 46 cents Nanja land comprised in S.No.271/4, the petitioner had approached the respondent with an application, dated 21.11.2012 and agreed to pay the stamp duty in difference and other fees, if any. Along with the application, the petitioner produced Form No.23, issued by the Parasalai Sub Registrar Office in favour of the respondent.
5.The learned counsel has continued that the respondent sent the impugned letter and refused to receive the stamp duty in difference, by quoting Section 28 B of the Registration Act, 1908, as the purchase of the petitioner is invalid as it has been registered out side Tamil Nadu, which is in contravention to Section 28(a) of the Registration Act.
6.The learned counsel has added that the respondent had stated in the impugned letter that the petitioner had registered her sale deed at Parasalai on 23.04.2005, which was after the Amendment of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act No.19/1997 dated 29.03.1997, and hence, it is not possible to collect the stamp duty in difference and registration fee etc., from the petitioner.
7.The learned counsel has contended that when 19-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides for the payment of stamp duty in difference, the respondent ought not to have denied to receive the same and therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court and that the writ petition may be ordered as prayed for.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader has stated that admittedly, the petitioner had purchased 46 cents Nanja land comprised in S.No.271/4 in Thanichiyam village, Vadipattai Taluk, Madurai District. Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908 prescribes the place of registering the documents.
9.The learned Additional Government Pleadaer has submitted that the petitioner, in contravention of Section 28, had registered her sale deed in respect of the property situate in Tamil Nadu, in the Sub Registrar's Office, Parasalai, Kerala State on 23.04.2005. The said Sub Registrar parasalai Kerala State, under Section 65 of the Registration Act, through the petitioner, forwarded the Memorandum relating to the said sale deed registered as Doc.No.796/2005 to the respondent and the petitioner has come forward to remit the difference in stamp duty and registration fees.
10.The learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that in the light of Section 28 of the Registration Act, there was no effective registration and the transaction has become null and void. Hence,the respondent refused to act on an invalid document. The Provision of Section 19B is not applicable to a document, which is null and void in the eye of law. It has been mandated in Section 28 of the Registration Act itself that any document registered outside the State of Tamil Nadu in Contravention of the provisions of clause (a) shall be deemed to be null and void. There is no provision to collect any difference of duty on a document which is void under the provisions of the Registration Act and therefore, there is nothing wrong in the action of the respondent and that the writ petition may be dismissed.
11.I have considered the aforesaid submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
12.It is not in dispute that the petitioner had purchased 46 cents of Nanja land comprised in S.No.271/4 in Thanichiyam Village from one Indira for a valuable consideration and the sale deed was registered on 23.4.2005 at Parasalai Sub Registrar Office, in Kerala State under Doc.No.769 of 2005.
13.Thereafter, when the petitioner had approached the respondent to make entries with the Vadiapatty Sub Registrar Office on payment of difference in stamp duty and any other fees, if any, he had refused to receive the same by his letter, dated 18.1.2013 on the ground that after the amendment, dated 29.3.1997, as per the provisions of Section 28(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, any document registered outside the State of Tamil Nadu in contravention of the provisions of Clause (a) shall be deemed to be null and void, and therefore, as the sale deed has become null and void, the difference in stamp duty cannot be collected and also there is no provision in the Stamp Act, to collect the difference in stamp duty on the void sale deed.
14.Now, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908. Section 28 was substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 1997 w.e.f. 29.3.1997, which reads as under:-
28. Place for registering documents relating to land:- Save as in this part otherwise provided.
(a) Every documents mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2) of Section 17 insofar as such document relates to immovable property and in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (cc) of section 18, shall be presented for registration in the office of the Sub Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such documents relates is situate in the State of Tamil Nadu; and
(b) any document registered out side the State of Tamil Nadu in contravention of the provisions of clause (a) shall be deemed to be null and void?
15.From the above provision, it is clear that any document registered outside the State of Tamil Nadu in contravention of the provisions of Clause (a) of Section 28 of the Registration Act, shall be deemedd to be null and void.
16.As per the above amendment, when the instrument has become null and void, the question of collecting the difference in stamp duty does not arise.
17.On the other hand, the contention of the petitioner is that when there is no bar in the provisions of Section 19-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the respondent ought not to have refused to receive the difference in stamp duty.
18.Section 19-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as under:-
"19-B. Payment of duty on copies, counter parts or duplicates when that duty has not been paid on the principal or original instrument ? (1) Where any instrument is registered in any part of India other than the State of Tamil Nadu and such instrument relates, wholly or partly to any property situate in the State of Tamil Nadu, the copy of such instrument shall, when received in the State of Tamil Nadu under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), be liable to be charged with the difference of duty as on the original instrument.
(2) The difference of duty shall be calculated having regard to -
(a) the extent of property situate in the State of Tamil Nadu; and
(b) the proportionate consideration or value or market value of such extent of property.
(3) The party liable to pay duty on the original instrument shall upon the receipt of notice from the registering officer, pay the difference in duty within the time allowed by such registering officer." 19.A perusal of the said provision shows that there is no bar in collecting the difference of duty as on the original document, if the same is registered in any part of India other than the State of Tamil Nadu.
20.In the impugned letter, dated 18.1.2013, the respondent has stated that as per the provisions of Section 28(b) of the Registration Act, as the sale deed has become null and void, though there is a provision under Section 19-B of the Indian Stamp Act to collect the difference of duty as on the original instrument, as there is no provision to collect the difference of duty on the void instrument, the difference of duty could not be collected on the void instrument.
21.As rightly stated by the respondent, in his letter, dated 18.1.2013, though there is a provision under Section 19-B of the Indian Stamp Act to collect the difference of duty as on the original instrument, as there is no provision to collect the difference of duty on the void instrument, since the sale deed has become null and void as per the provisions of Section 28(b) of the Registration Act, the difference of duty could not be collected on the void instrument. In other words, when there is no doucment at all, the question of collecting difference of duty does not arise.
22.On a careful scrutinisation of Section 28 of the Registration Act and Section 19-B of the Indian Stamp Act, this Court is of view that the letter of the respondent, dated 18.1.2013 does not suffer from infirmity as the respondent has rightly refused to receive the difference of duty as there is no valid instrument as per Section 28 of the Registration Act and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the letter impugned in this writ petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed without costs.
To To
1.The District Registrar (Administration) Madurai (North) Registration Department, Madurai..